Plans for new lacrosse stadium on north campus

[mikey75]

HP1. When I used the word "halt" I meant it in the temporary sense. The point of my post is that in its press release Hofstra acknowledges Shuart Stadium to be the premium athletic venue in the region and an historic structure. If this is the case, and it is in my view, what is the purpose of ripping it down? I am not aware of any other historic structure on the Hofstra campus that has been demolished. Calkins, the original gymnasium was repurposed. Aside from the historic nature of the facility the practical side of this makes little sense. Shuart was built in the early 1960's and at early 1960's prices, not to mention all the subsequent upgrades. Just to take it down will cost millions and to put up a "campus village" whatever that even is will cost more millions. To build anything comparable to Shuart on north campus will cost close to $30 million if not more. For example, LaValle Stadium at Stony Brook built in the early 2020's cost about $22 million to build. That same facility today would cost over $30 million.

We all know that Hofstra is not going to spend that kind of money on a new stadium, especially after building the campus village (which is hard to price because who knows what it even is). What we are going to get on north campus is a facility like the field hockey facility with some aluminum seating and a plastic scoreboard. The fact that Hofstra has not provided any schematic or design for the new stadium speaks volumes. They don't want to hear the pushback when they disclose whatever they haven't even planned yet. It will certainly not be the historic, premier venue that Shuart is and as Hofstra concedes. This new facility will likely be another nail in the coffin in the already moribund man's lacrosse program. If you watched this year's NCAA lax tournament at Shuart the ESPN announcers were praising Shuart as a great lax venue and that the quarterfinals should be played at Shuart every year. Since you brought up the topic of revenue Hofstra will lose all that revenue, publicity, together with revenue from pro soccor, pro lax, and high school sports and other uses. The NCAA, for one, is not going to utilize some cookie-cutter generic field on north campus. The quarterfinals will likely be moved to Stony Brook. The whole thing is a bad and senseless decision and for what? A campus village? What exactly is that? This is just another move by the administration that is hostile, at best indifferent, to Hofstra athletics. They will take a bow and credit once in awhile but that is about it. This seems to be someone's vanity project aided and abetted by a consultant who will share whatever vision you might have if you can pay their fees. The whole thing is a bad idea.

[HUSID74]

Totally agree Mikey75....this whole idea is a waster of time, money and energy!

[Mikey77]

LaValle was built in the 2000's not the 2020"s. My mistake.

[HofstraPride1]

HP1. When I used the word "halt" I meant it in the temporary sense. The point of my post is that in its press release Hofstra acknowledges Shuart Stadium to be the premium athletic venue in the region and an historic structure. If this is the case, and it is in my view, what is the purpose of ripping it down? I am not aware of any other historic structure on the Hofstra campus that has been demolished. Calkins, the original gymnasium was repurposed. Aside from the historic nature of the facility the practical side of this makes little sense. Shuart was built in the early 1960's and at early 1960's prices, not to mention all the subsequent upgrades. Just to take it down will cost millions and to put up a "campus village" whatever that even is will cost more millions. To build anything comparable to Shuart on north campus will cost close to $30 million if not more. For example, LaValle Stadium at Stony Brook built in the early 2020's cost about $22 million to build. That same facility today would cost over $30 million.

We all know that Hofstra is not going to spend that kind of money on a new stadium, especially after building the campus village (which is hard to price because who knows what it even is). What we are going to get on north campus is a facility like the field hockey facility with some aluminum seating and a plastic scoreboard. The fact that Hofstra has not provided any schematic or design for the new stadium speaks volumes. They don't want to hear the pushback when they disclose whatever they haven't even planned yet. It will certainly not be the historic, premier venue that Shuart is and as Hofstra concedes. This new facility will likely be another nail in the coffin in the already moribund man's lacrosse program. If you watched this year's NCAA lax tournament at Shuart the ESPN announcers were praising Shuart as a great lax venue and that the quarterfinals should be played at Shuart every year. Since you brought up the topic of revenue Hofstra will lose all that revenue, publicity, together with revenue from pro soccor, pro lax, and high school sports and other uses. The NCAA, for one, is not going to utilize some cookie-cutter generic field on north campus. The quarterfinals will likely be moved to Stony Brook. The whole thing is a bad and senseless decision and for what? A campus village? What exactly is that? This is just another move by the administration that is hostile, at best indifferent, to Hofstra athletics. They will take a bow and credit once in awhile but that is about it. This seems to be someone's vanity project aided and abetted by a consultant who will share whatever vision you might have if you can pay their fees. The whole thing is a bad idea.

You raise some valid concerns. The devil will be in details when it comes to this plan so I will hold off on fully judging until we have that information. I do trust our administration though that whatever decision they make will be in best interests of Hofstra including athletics.

[Mikey77]

HP1. I don't trust the administration one iota. They are demolishing an historic structure named after a man who devoted his life to Hofstra, while keeping the law school named after a convicted felon and debarred attorney, whose crimes were particularly despicable. Not a good look. Bernie Madoff was on the Board of Trustees for a stretch for goodness sake. Trust me - I'm a Hofstra guy. I go to many of the games and sing the university's praises, but you have to watch these people closely and call out the baloney when necessary.

[stuball888]

The way I see it is from the time it was planned to now construction course have either doubled or tripled in price. Let's say originally the price was around $50 million to demolish the stadium build the new stadium and also turning it into a college town I would say now you're looking at the cost of around $150 million for this to be done.
Maybe this is the reason for it being halted or at least delayed
I will not be surprised if they come up with some other plan that is less aggressive

[Polito]

considering that HU put it out there about the removal and replacement of the stadium and the ambitious village idea without any actual plan, and then turned around weeks later now promoting an arrangement that keeps the stadium tells me and everyone paying attention that HU doesn't really know what it's doing - there is nothing historical about this University admin that has earned any blind trust from anyone

in fact every time they've had a chance to do so, they've botched it - now I DO think they are working to turn that around, and the direction feels improved to me, but this is very recent and they have a long way to go to earn confidence in their athletic leadership

This backtracking is an indicator to me that they certainly aren't there just yet - this all should've been planned out much more thoroughly before they go off making public announcements that feel incomplete and then contradict themselves

I continue to sense a lot of highly educated and degreed people who don't really have real-life collegiate business leadership ability to actually properly establish a vision and to then effectively execute it

[Polito]

Editing my reply slightly per my re-review:

Hofstra announced a strategic plan in fall 2024 which should provide much of the information you are seeking. Here is details https://www.hofstra.edu/strategic-plan/ ... 1785423358

And HP1, thank you very much for providing the strategy plan info - now let me tell you my perspective on it:

Good:
--They have something documented.
--It's categorized, and has goals for each category.

Bad:
--There is NOTHING about athletics in this. If sports isn't integrated and a key FOCAL point of the strategy, then they are lost in today's time.
--There is not enough how detail to achieve these goals, 0 benchmarks, 0 timelines, 0 investment numbers, 0 owners assigned (even departmental level), and 0 data points. Is this just a wish list lol?

Saying something like you are going to grow you graduate student enrollment is an ok goal, I get it, it's a revenue producer (although why not also your undergrad which fuels a lot of other needs and has dropped off a cliff). But ... HOW? WHEN? WHO? WHYYYY? Need more specifics.

This is at least something of a strategic plan - but it's still somewhat high-level showing a general direction and highlighting key goals. But goals without data, without reasoning, without more detailed measures of success, and without dates are nothing more than hopes and dreams. Without athletics incorporated as a driving factor, it's lip service. Not one aspect of athletics in this is document is totally mind boggling, embarrassing, and shows a complete disconnect from today's collegiate landscape. We continue to be behind the 8-ball.

Translation: This may not have been their intention, but in the real business world (not educations pretend world), this would be considered a HL first draft framework that needs to have more actual meat added. If I presented this as a strategic plan to a board it would leave the room feeling hopeful but empty. I.E. not enough substance and therefore too much room for goals to not be achieved in a reasonable timeframe.

[cactus]

The way I see it is from the time it was planned to now construction course have either doubled or tripled in price. Let's say originally the price was around $50 million to demolish the stadium build the new stadium and also turning it into a college town I would say now you're looking at the cost of around $150 million for this to be done.
Maybe this is the reason for it being halted or at least delayed
I will not be surprised if they come up with some other plan that is less aggressive

It's also likely driven by a few more years of operating in the red since they hatched the idea. Which is not an issue specific to Hofstra, it's happening all over the northeast with private colleges (and why getting into a good SUNY is becoming super hard). Syracuse, Drexel, Temple, BU to name a few under serious financial stress.

[The Shadow]

Everyone should also consider the added costs of the new faculty contract that is being negotiated. All of these expenses have to be added in. Every Long Island family is feeling the added cost for food, gas, and electricity. HU also has to be feeling these new expenses. Taking on extra economic undertakings on speculation, might not be the best idea for a private university at this sensitive time. I think there are other programs and areas of the campus that could use an upgrade in place of a new retail area or whatever is planned for the village.

[HofstraPride1]

Everyone should also consider the added costs of the new faculty contract that is being negotiated. All of these expenses have to be added in. Every Long Island family is feeling the added cost for food, gas, and electricity. HU also has to be feeling these new expenses. Taking on extra economic undertakings on speculation, might not be the best idea for a private university at this sensitive time. I think there are other programs and areas of the campus that could use an upgrade in place of a new retail area or whatever is planned for the village.

In order for it to make sense would need to have a solid partnership with a developer who foots much of the costs. Even tearing down stadium itself would cost a let let alone building a new stadium and constructing a big mixed-use village.

[stuball888]

Did some research on construction cost and demolition
My numbers were way off
To tear down, Shuart stadium would cost in the vicinity of six to $10 million
Building the new one will probably cost in the vicinity of 20 to 30,000,000
Clearing the way, putting in stores infrastructure with plumbing and everything else that's where the big one would come in. It's probably gonna be in the vicinity of about another $20 million.
So my projection would be about $60 million for this
That's a big investment for mid major school
I looked up we putting new surface down at the Edwards Field
According to my research, it would be anywhere between 300,000 to $500,000

[Mikey77]

There is no economic, aesthetic, academic, or other good reason for tearing down Shuart, building a "campus village," or a new north campus stadium. Zilch. This is a con job by some developer/consultant married to bad decision by the administration. Sorry, I just don't see the point.

[cactus]

So I might be in the minority of thinking a campus village/college town, done right, would be a really cool thing and a great way for getting Hofstra's name out there.

But looking at the costs that Stu estimated, bringing back Preston and plastering his face all over Long Island would have been a lot more cost effective for brand recognition.

[HofstraPride1]

So I might be in the minority of thinking a campus village/college town, done right, would be a really cool thing and a great way for getting Hofstra's name out there.

But looking at the costs that Stu estimated, bringing back Preston and plastering his face all over Long Island would have been a lot more cost effective for brand recognition.

I agree that if done right it could be a real long-term boon for Hofstra. We have a beautiful campus in New York City 's backyard which is a great recruiting tool for any college, but one negative is we have never had a true college town feel with Hempstead-Uniondale area. If this can create some of that atmopshere and it leads to more students wanting to study here then the investment will have been worth it.

[Polito]

So I'm definitely in the "this could be super cool" camp, but I'm also firmly in the "HU needs to focus on and fix some other things first" camp lol.

1a HU needs to invest all it has in mens hoops becoming a normal fixture in NCAAT's. Pay the talent, make the program look feel and smell like a big time program, and get us on the main stage on a regular basis.

1b is HU needs to fix its enrollment. The undergrad numbers are pitiful, and I think this fix is needed for many reasons, including to provide a village with enough customers to use it. The surrounding community isn't gonna cut it, and us alum need a reason to just "swing by" lol so we won't be enough. You need a student fed community to make this viable. Yes, it's a challenge everywhere because the prices are absurd for a basic degree, so it needs to be addressed - some things need to change.

1c is HU needs to fix its marketing. It's stale and boring and often mis-timed. There are SO many exciting, marketable things with HU. Yet our brand recognition, even on LONG ISLAND, is very poor. Get a real marketing firm that knows how to properly sexify a brand and let's jack this place up. We have the logo now - friggin do something with it. Here, regionally, and nationally. Do better.


Considering all the business, communication, and marketing minds connected to this university, it's baffling and frankly unacceptable for HU to not be better in these areas. The challenge partly is we have too many lawyer types trying to be business leaders. They aren't. They are notoriously terrible business owners. We need more actual business and finance people driving these ships who have vision, strategy, and operational execution expertise.

HU has a world of potential to be even bigger and better than it is - it's still a sleeping giant IMO. I do think some things are finally starting to show life of improving, but we are far from there yet. We need to continue to audit ourselves and do better. Faster. But I digress...

[HofstraPride1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tst217wslc4&t=407s

President Poser briefly addressed this topic in her state of university speech Wednesday at link above starting around 6:50 mark where she mentioned partnering this past summer with IMEG, an engineering consulting firm, who consulted with Gensler, Landtech and HR&A about potential designs for this college town development and work toward a request for proposals process. This confirms plan is moving ahead, but like I have said before, it will be years before anything happens most likely, especially with new soccer team playing at Shuart starting in 2028.

[Polito]

So I'm really not looking to knock the University for at least thinking forward - this really isn't a bad thing, and it's actually great to see HU trying to act on current industry trends for once - I'm just not sure HU is ready for it or that we can execute it with the right level of quality and leadership. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, just means I think we need to hash out a number of things prior, during, and after to ensure it actually hits as desired.

But this is what's happening across the country - universities are doing this, towns and cities are doing this, it's a super cool thing to have a self-contained village that's geared to you with your branding and vibe all over.

I love the concept. But is it the right time? Where will it draw from? How will it be a success? All questions that HU will need to answer in time.

[bean-pie]

If they don’t do it, HU will be NA. Ai about to demolish schools across the country - we live in the day and age of idiocracy - just look at the current administration, education doesn’t mean what it should. If you can position yourself as a destination with restaurants, bars and sports, that is sustainable, education by itself. Negative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Polito]

Ah, the education system, such a great topic that needs more attention. Have to be careful though, it can quickly become a nasty political topic which I will do my best to keep it on topic and across all sides for this board.

bean-pie, as much as it may be convenient today to blame one current side for the current state, this goes WELL beyond current and one side, and I'm sure you know that - it spans decades across both sides, all are to blame, so let's be honest about that. Politicians typically care about the education system just enough for campaign trail marketing material - as long as the stock market continues to rise over time, it's all good. Politicians on ALL sides care about $, let's not pull any punches here. One side isn't all goody goody and utopia humanitarian, they only present as such because it's easy marketing today for sure. There is RAMPANT corruption on both the left and right. It's foolish to think it's one-sided, either way. Make no mistake, as long as the US economic engine is moving, things 'must be great'.

And let's separate college / university from youth education - my takes:

-- I have ZERO sympathy for higher education. They have themselves to blame. Their blatant greed and complete mismanagement is the reason for their downturn, and they deserve every bit of it. The price tags are outrageous and too often provide little to no real ROI. They have been crippling our youth for decades charging a fortune to 'teach' kids a bunch of nonsense subjects that are nothing more than hobbies and have no chance to produce a livable wage for the graduate. So they are rightly and justly being called out for their BS, and I'm here for it. Education should charge what the average rate of return produces for that area of study. That would change a lot of tunes and course correct a lot of misplaced expectations. It would also force universities to run themselves like proper businesses instead of running them into the ground knowing they'll get bailed out. These institutions, HU included, are as bad as the mortgage lenders that caused the housing crash. This needs to, and will eventually even if gradually, crash and burn hard too in order to force the needed correction.

-- For K-12, it's a different story. US test scores have been in a downturn for many years, and this I do put on the government - on BOTH sides. Neither has fixed anything, and both have continued to ruin it. A bunch of pencil pushers keep forcing wasteful re-inventions of the wheel. Teaching kids to draw pictures to prove basic math is utter stupidity. And it's because we've allowed a bunch of dip sticks to question why 2 + 2 = 4 lol. The answer is because that's MATH which has been such since before any of these dolts have been alive - memorize it. But nooooo, we had to allow upside down individual 'truths' (aka wildly misguided opinions) to perpetuate and now kids are wasting their intelligence questioning absolutes and univeral truths instead of using their unique abilities to add actual value to the world. They are wayyyy less capable of using their wonderful minds constructively. Nothing is being done with the best interest of the children in mind, and that's sad.

We have 3 kids in a great district, and even though it's a solid school we still have to stay on top of things for our kids to be properly taught. Even the teachers hate these new ways, and don't want to do it, but the system forces it because the priority is to have the biggest budget and to blow it all to ensure you get the same or more next time. It's a total mess, and why I question education 'leaders' often.